alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16485]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-602-000]


NorAm Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

June 16, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 9, 1998, NorAm Gas Transmission Company 
(NGT), 525 Milam, P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, Louisiana 71151, filed in 
Docket No. CP98-602-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 
157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205, 157.211) for authorization to operate a tap, regulator, 
and metering facilities, located in Poinsett County, Arkansas, under 
NGT's blanket certificate issued in Docket Nos. CP82-384-000 and CP82-
384-001, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, all as more 
fully set forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and 
open to public inspection.
    NGT proposes to operate a 1-inch tap and 1-inch regulator on Line 
JM-25, located in Section 29, Township 11 North, Range 7 East, located 
in Poinsett County, Arkansas. NGT states that these facilities were 
constructed under Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act and Subpart 
B, Part 284 of the Commission's Regulations and are necessary to 
provide increased service to the rural distribution system of Arkla, a 
distribution division of NorAm Energy Corporation (Arkla).
    NGT states that the total estimated increased volumes to be 
delivered through this new tap are approximately 1,000 MMBtu annually 
and 10 MMBtu on a peak day. NGT declares that the total costs are 
estimated at $2,032 and Arkla will reimburse NGT an estimated $1,600 of 
those costs.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16485 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1956

FELICIA A. UNDERDUE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:16

- cv - 00653

- RJC )

Submitted : February 23, 2021 Decided: February 25, 2021

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion

. Felicia A. Underdue, Appellant Pro Se. Tory Ian Summey, Keith Michael Weddington, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for A ppellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Felicia A. Underdue appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for immediate reinstatement of her employment, motion for employment records, and motion
t o compel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The dis trict court properly construed Underdue’s motion for reinstatement of employment as a motion for a preliminary injunction, the denial of which is immediately appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in d enying Underdue’s motion for a preliminary injunction and affirm that portion of the district court’s order

. See Roe v. Dep’t of Def. , 947 F.3d 207, 219 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating standard).
The district court’s decision to deny Underdue’s discover y - relate d motions , however, is not immediately appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the portion of Underdue’s appeal challenging the denial of those motions for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Underdue’s motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the res olution of this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED IN PART , DISMISSED IN PART
539 P.2d 951

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Homer Bryce GADDY, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 648.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Sept. 11, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1975.

Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen. by John S. O’Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, for appellee.

Platt & Jenson, P. C. by Dennis D. Jenson, Coolidge, for appellant.

OPINION

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

On January 20, 1975, appellant pled guilty to the crime of sale of narcotics in violation of A.R.S. Sec. 36-1002.02(A). He was sentenced to serve a term in the Arizona State Prison of not less than five years nor more than seven years. Upon sentencing, he was informed by the court that he would be ineligible for parole or release until the minimum five years had been served. Since incarceration, appellant has been told by prison officials that credits given prisoners pursuant to A.R.S. Sec. 31-251 and Sec. 31-252 cannot and will not be allowed against the seven-year maximum sentence until he has served his minimum five-year sentence.

The issues raised are (1) whether or not the provisions of A.R.S. Sec. 36-1002.02 are unconstitutional as violative of the cruel and unusual punishment provisions of the Constitution of the State of Arizona or the United States Constitution, and (2) would appellant be entitled to double-time deduction before he has served five years’ imprisonment for sale of narcotics in violation of A.R.S. Sec. 36-1002.02(A) ?

Appellant’s constitutional challenge has already been decided adversely to him in *State v. Mendoza,*104 Ariz. 395, 454 P. 2d 140 (1969) and *State v. O’Donnal,*110 Ariz. 552, 521 P.2d 984 (1974).

> A.R.S. Sec. 36-1002.02(A) clearly states: “ . . . every person who transports, imports into this state, sells, furnishes, administers or gives away, or offers to transport, import into this state, sell, furnish, administer, or give away, or attempts to import into this state or transport any narcotic drug other than marijuana except upon the written prescription of a physician, osteopath, dentist, or veterinarian licensed to practice in this state shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison from five years to life, *and shall not be eligible for release upon completion of sentence, or on parole, or on any other basis until he*
>       *478
>       *has served not less than five years in prison.”*(Emphasis added)

In *State v. Dominguez,*16 Ariz. App. 592, 494 P.2d 1337 (1972), Division One of this court held that the provisions of A.R.S. Secs. 31-251 and 31-252 would not be applicable to reduce the minimum statutorily-prescribed time that must be served without possibility of discharge, release, or parole, or on any other basis. See also, Attorney General Opinion No. 73-13.

We hold that the provisions of A.R.S. Secs. 31-251 and 31-252 are not applicable to reduce the minimum prison time required by A.R.S. Sec. 36-1002.02(A).

Affirmed.

KRUCKER and HATHAWAY, JJ., concur.
# Attachment 1 

# Attachment 12

# Attachment 13
# C_2015107EN.01001302.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid — Spain) — Grima Janet Nisttahuz Poclava v Jose María Ariza Toledano

(Case C-117/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - National legislation providing for an employment contract of indefinite duration with a probationary period of one year - Implementation of EU law - None - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2015/C 107/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grima Janet Nisttahuz Poclava

Defendant: Jose María Ariza Toledano

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid (Spain) by decision of 4 March 2014.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

---
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
                
                Defense Logistics Agency
                        The Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency
                    DLA
            Search
                        Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                            Search
                    Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                        Search
    Home

    What DLA Offers
    
        Excess Property Disposal

    Document Services

    Products

    Services

    Programs

    Working With DLA
    
        Applications

    Small Business

    Federal and International Cataloging

    Defense Data Standards

    Events

    Procurement Policies

    Government Programs

    Forms

    Organizations
    
        DLA Headquarters

    DLA Aviation

    DLA Disposition Services

    DLA Distribution

    DLA Energy

    DLA Land and Maritime

    DLA Troop Support

    DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM

    DLA Europe & Africa

    DLA Indo-Pacific

    Customer Support
    
        Self Help Tools

    How to Order

    Find Your Order

    Customer Facing Offices

    Training

    Brochures

    Warfighter Support

    Customer Service Management

    Careers

    About DLA
    
        Contact Us

    Locations

    Leaders

    News

    History

    Media Gallery

    DLA Campaigns  Home
  Land and Maritime
  About
  DLA Land and Maritime Image Galleries
 DLA Land and Maritime images
 Supply Chain Alliance and Exhibition
 DLA Land and Maritime News
 Hall of Fame Ceremonies
 DSCC Activities
 DLA Land and Maritime Hall of Fame ceremonies
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.61 MB)
 
 SARC
 Photo Gallery
 2024 DLA Supply Chain Alliance Conference and Exhibition Image Gallery
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.61 MB)
 
 SARC
 Photo Gallery
 DLA Land and Maritime news
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.61 MB)
 
 SARC
 Photo Gallery
 DSCC activities
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.61 MB)
 
 SARC
 Photo Gallery
 Contact UsSite IndexStrategic PlanDLA IG HotlineFOIANo FEAR ActWhistleblower ProtectionDLA CareersImagesWebmasterEEOSection 508Public AffairsSAPRExternal Links DisclaimerDOD Information Quality GuidelinesPrivacy/SecurityUSA.govDOD Web PolicyDOD Open GovernmentPlain Language
                    Stay Connected
            
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


The Board of Directors
EMS Technologies, Inc:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 2-76455, 33-50528, 333-20843, 333-32425, 333-35842, 333-86973 and
333-74770) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-61796 and 333-87160) of EMS Technologies, Inc.
of our report dated March 30, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of EMS Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and
2003 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity
and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and the related financial statement
schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form
10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of EMS Technologies, Inc.

In our report specified above, we state that we did not audit the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of EMS Technologies
Canada, Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary, as of December 31, 2003 and for each of
the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2003 which financial
statements were audited by other auditors whose report has been furnished to us.
Our opinion, insofar as it relates to EMS Technologies Canada, Ltd., is based
solely on the report of the other auditors as of December 31, 2003 and for each
of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2003.

Our report refers to changes in the method of accounting for goodwill and other
intangible assets in 2002.


KPMG LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
March 30, 2005
April 23, 2015

Manager, Flight Standards Service

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office

FAA Headquarters, Building 10A

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Re: Petition to Amend Exemption No. 11253 to Regulatory Docket No FAA-2014-0817

for Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management (DFAM) for additional aircraft.

Attention: FAA UAS Integration Office

DFAM respectfully requests the addition of the following aircraft to our Exemption No. 

11253 and COA FAA-2014-0817-333E:

Additional Aircraft Requested:

• DJI Inspire o (Note Maybe Eligible for Summary Grant/Amendment by previous FAA Analysis of 

Exemption No. 11336)

• AeroVironment Puma AE o (Note Maybe Eligible for Summary Grant/Amendment by previous FAA Analysis of 

Exemption No. 11261)

• PrecisionHawk Lancaster

o (Note Maybe Eligible for Summary Grant/Amendment by previous FAA Analysis of

Exemption No. 11309)

• AirRobot AR180 & AirRobot AR200 o (Note Maybe Eligible for Summary Grant/Amendment by previous FAA Analysis of

Exemption No. 11206)

• 3D Robotics Spektre Industrial Multi-Rotor Aerial Vehicle o (Note Maybe Eligible for Summary Grant/Amendment by previous FAA Analysis of

Exemption No. 11206)

DFAM’s existing safety standards and procedures as outlined in our Flight Operation & 

Procedures Manual (FOPM) will continue for the additional Aircraft. We will follow the 

recommended Maintenance and Operations Parameters set forth by each of these 

respective UAV Manufactures.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at the phone number or via the e-mail address

provided above should you have any questions or concerns.

Respectfully submitted,

Simon Nielsen

CEO, Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management, Inc.

Simon Nielsen

CEO

Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management, Inc.

606 Venice Blvd, Suite E

Venice, CA 90291

(213) 379-0629

Simon.Nielsen@drone-fleet.com

www.drone-fleet.com
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18100]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98-ASW-21]


Revocation of Class E Airspace; Spofford, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
which revokes the Class E airspace at Spofford, TX.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule published at 63 FR 16888 is 
effective 0901 UTC, August 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 
817-222-5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on April 7, 1998 
(63 FR 16888). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that 
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on August 13, 1998. No adverse comments were received, 
and thus this action confirms that this direct final rule will be 
effective on that date.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on June 30, 1998.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 98-18100 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
No. 10-5184.

#### Kenneth A. Roberts, Petitioner v. Deb McCulloch.

562 U.S. 1172, 131 S. Ct. 983,

178 L. Ed. 2d 812,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 18.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 908, 131 S. Ct. 255, 178 L. Ed. 2d 169, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7019.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2840 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat certain first responder 

survivors benefits as earned income for purposes of the kiddie tax. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2019 

Mr. BEYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat certain first responder survivors benefits as earned income 

for purposes of the kiddie tax. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FIRST RESPONDER SURVIVORS BENE4 FITS TREATED AS EARNED INCOME FOR 

5 KIDDIE TAX. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1(g)(4)(C) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(C) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS

9 AS EARNED INCOME.—For purposes of this sub10 section, each of following amounts shall be 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2840 IH

1 treated as earned income of the child referred 

2 to in paragraph (1) to the extent included in 

3 the gross income of such child: 

4 ‘‘(i) DISTRIBUTIONS FROM QUALIFIED

5 DISABILITY TRUSTS.—Any amount in6 cluded in the gross income of such child 

7 under section 652 or 662 by reason of 

8 being a beneficiary of a qualified disability 

9 trust (as defined in section 

10 642(b)(2)(C)(ii)). 

11 ‘‘(ii) CERTAIN FIRST RESPONDER

12 SURVIVORS BENEFITS.—Any payment 

13 made by Federal, State, or local govern14 ment to such child if such payment is 

15 made by reason of the death of the parent 

16 of such child during such parent’s service 

17 as a law enforcement officer, firefighter, 

18 paramedic, or emergency medical techni19 cian.’’. 

20 (b) APPLICATION TO ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM

21 TAX.—Section 59(j)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by 

22 inserting ‘‘and including amounts treated as earned in23 come under section 1(g)(4)(C)’’ after ‘‘section 911(d)(2)’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2840 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40582

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAUL MARTINEZ-BECERRA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-20-1

Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Raul Martinez-Becerra raises

an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Morales-Mota,

704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2374 (2013). In MoralesMota, 704 F.3d at 412, this court, relying upon its holding in United States v.

Joslin, 487 F. App’x 139, 141-43 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1847

(2013), rejected the argument that the Texas offense of ?burglary of a habitation”

is outside the generic, contemporary definition of ?burglary of a dwelling” under

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 13-40582 Document: 00512473340 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
No. 13-40582

U.S.S.G ¶ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because it defines the “owner” of a habitation as a

person with a “greater right to possession.” Accordingly, the appellant’s motion

for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-40582 Document: 00512473340 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>    0000033656
<NAME>       ETHYL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           18162
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   165259
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2349
<INVENTORY>                                     193836
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                399114
<PP&E>                                          766413
<DEPRECIATION>                                  357316
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1067277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           180428
<BONDS>                                         594429
<COMMON>                                         83465
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       61133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1067277
<SALES>                                        1063615
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1063615
<CGS>                                           761660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   923691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4274 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               25668
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 109982
<INCOME-TAX>                                     32452
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              77530
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     77530
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .71
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-6725.

#### Mark Norton, Petitioner v. Brian Coleman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al.

562 U.S. 1034, 131 S. Ct. 578,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8720.

178 L. Ed. 2d 422,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.